There's lines a man just does not cross, dressing up as a vagina is one of those lines!
Printable View
There's lines a man just does not cross, dressing up as a vagina is one of those lines!
And in the right corner, The Giant Vagina.
Leeets get reaaaady to ruuuumble!
Well yes, in a sense. The unfortunate reality(inconvenient truth?) is that our civilization has been building up to that very thing for generations now...you can't honestly look at the almost 18 TRILLION DOLLAR debt and be like "oh, it's a percentage of GDP, we're fine"...I've previously linked visual references to what 18 trillion dollars actually looks like, IRL...it's somewhat akin to a person standing next to a nuclear-class aircraft carrier...except instead of a ship it's just piles of money. Pallets of money. Stacked a hundred feet high and a thousand feet deep. All 100's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
"Let civilization collapse" is going to be what it becomes, because, in our ignorance, we've managed to find ways to manage lesser failures, in spite of the whole...the principle still exists, and always will. It always has.
You're fighting the very faith that keeps us going. The actual thing that backs our dollar. American exceptionalism, which I actually believe in. I don't believe you'll win your fight. I certainly see what you're after. I just don't agree that destroying us is necessary. I think modern America has been better than you think it has.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Seemed more like you were part of it. Still does. Never said you were making fun of women though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laviticas
The Subprime Mortgage crisis is just another example of how our government set out with the best of intentions (getting more people into their own homes) and fucked around with the most basic safeguards (Banks will not give loans to people that can't afford to pay them back) until it created an environment that caused the financial collapse. This wasn't "both" parties as you try to spin it.. this was the Democrat party, plain and simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcCs1yGO6aA
I figured on you just targeting people but it was just the Democratic Party (while carefully skirting all Republican involvement, bank involvement, and citizen involvement and ignoring numerous events involved). I was wrong about you. I am not terribly surprised though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Banks, Republicans, Democrats, and the public were involved. I can say it. Why can't you? That's right.
It is almost wantonly foolish to neglect the role of Glass-Steagall's removal.
Banks will most certainly give loans to people who won't pay them back even without guarantees. Look at our current automotive loan bubble for an example.
I thought Parkbandit made this post for a second. In retrospect that is kind of hilarious. The question is whether we tap our collective potential strength or we smash it when we see ourselves in the mirror. I think we have to tap it. We certainly do self interested things that aren't good for other places though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RojoDisco
The banks are not in the business to lose money. It's really naive to believe that they would give loans to the degree they did with the mortgage crisis to people who they know can't pay them back without some safety net given to them by the government. The safety net in this case was Fanny and Freddie Mae.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I find it hilarious that a "teacher" can't distinguish the word "Parkbandit" from the word "RojoDisco" even with 2 distinctly different avatars.Quote:
I thought Parkbandit made this post for a second. In retrospect that is kind of hilarious. The question is whether we tap our collective potential strength or we smash it when we see ourselves in the mirror. I think we have to tap it. We certainly do self interested things that aren't good for other places though.
So, English and American History aren't the subjects you teach. Let's hope it's Basket Weaving or Knitting 101... for our children's sake.
You just need some people greedy enough to run up share prices without concern for the future, thanks to investment banks no longer being divided from banks that do lending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's happening again right now without guarantees in auto loans like I already said. You're also carefully avoiding blaming 3/4 of the participants. You're that partisan.
My avatars are off and I'd just woken up. I was amused given your rabid hatred for her. Your response? Petulance of course. Is that how you raised your children?
Who did I miss? Here's exactly what I wrote previously. I know you are slow, er I mean you just woke up.. but here, I'll make it easier for you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Wow.. looks like I blamed the banks, the people and the government. Who am I missing for the 4th? Let me guess... THE EVIL CORPORATIONS!?
Rabid hatred for Rojo? Haha, not even. You really should stop projecting your own emotions onto other people. I don't have rabid hatred for people I actually know.. let alone an anonymous individual on a text based roleplaying game's forum.Quote:
My avatars are off and I'd just woken up. I was amused given your rabid hatred for her. Your response? Petulance of course. Is that how you raised your children?
And yes.. I raised my children to be petulant. You guessed it. How did you raise your children? Oh wait.. your wife got smart and kicked you to the curb before you could. Good for her.
It's entertaining when you make that minimized post and then make a OMG its all DEMOCRATS LET ME INCLUDE A VIDEO post. Sort of counteracts your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
You blamed the banks, the people, and your definition of government only mysteriously includes the Democrats. I listed the Republicans too but you just can't accept any blame on them.
I'd think that one would have to have a fair amount of feeling to describe anybody as man hating. What would those feelings be?
Because the best defense to you being petulant when I said something inoffensive is to try to somehow mischaracterize my divorce. Stay classy.
I don't leave the Republicans blameless. I'm sure most of them voted for giving people more access to their own homes.. because who doesn't want people to have their own homes except heartless meanies??Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
And like I stated earlier, it's not surprising that you want to minimize the Democrat's roll in this meltdown.. and yes, it's right there in the video that shows how loyal they were to their legislation. Right up until the actual meltdown when they tried to do what you are doing now...
You poor thing you. I just realized you honestly believe people hate you here. I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't hate you or anyone here. I use this forum for my entertainment. If you want to pin an emotion on my part.. try selfish maybe? I really am here only for my own entertainment.Quote:
I'd think that one would have to have a fair amount of feeling to describe anybody as man hating. What would those feelings be?
As far as calling someone a man hater.. it's much like I call you an anti-capitalist. There is plenty of evidence to support both... that's not emotional on my part though.. even when you take it that way.
You were inoffensive? You might want to revisit that post again before you take any high road. Like I've stated many times in the past.. don't take that road, you can't afford the tolls. You belong in a 4 wheeler just like most people here... deep in the mud.Quote:
Because the best defense to you being petulant when I said something inoffensive is to try to somehow mischaracterize my divorce. Stay classy.
Playing the victim as much as you do here doesn't come across very genuine, given your posting history. Stop doing it.
It is a shame that the Founding Fathers did not *literally* write "the Scope of Government (Bureaucracy) must not grow beyond xxx/yyy/zzz" (with x/y/z being defined as defense, trade, etc)
Last I heard, the Auto loan bubble.. which is so much smaller compared to the home loan that it's hard to even call it a bubble.. is being caused by The Fed really. If interest rates were not effectively ZERO, There would not nearly be as much subprime lending. What's the real Bubble? I think it's the stock market and interest rates. WHEN the Fed gets it's head out of it's ass and put interest rates back to normal, people will be dumping stocks like you wouldn't believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
As for the subprime loans... I always blame that shit on the people. Just like I blame drug dealing on the users. If the people wouldn't do the stupid ass loans, the banks wouldn't give them. If you are a stupid ass fuck that will take out a loan for 20+% interest for a car... frankly, you deserve to go to jail. (Or shot)
So I just got done having coffee with the old timers at McDonalds and I shared my giant vagina theory with them. After the tears of laughter cleared they all agreed with the theory. The vets think we have become a giant vag.
1) You actually went into public with this theory.
2) You actually talked to people at McDonalds.
3) You actually sat DOWN and had a full on conversation... with people in fucking McDonalds.
What's the matter with you, man? #PicardFacePalm
Maybe, just maybe, there might be some other people involved in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Let's break this down again. Apparently the only problematic thing the Republicans did was vote for "people to have more access to homes." and you think I'm the one minimizing things?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I thought it was funny that I thought a Rojo post was from you. You're very different people. You immediately decided that this was something to take offense to, because you're so cool and unemotional.
Oh it's a daily event. They get free coffee and get to visit with the local hippy, just doing my part to put smiles on these guys faces.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackWhisper
I can go through the voting record from the Clinton Presidency and who sponsored the bills that initiated the crisis if you would like. Are you suggesting that it wasn't Democrats that pushed for this legislation... more home ownership for more people because it's not fair they don't have a home of their own? Because I don't have any idea but it sounds like a scatter-brained liberal push to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
I took much less offense by your comments than you intended. Sorry.Quote:
I thought it was funny that I thought a Rojo post was from you. You're very different people. You immediately decided that this was something to take offense to, because you're so cool and unemotional.
It might have had something to do with the failure of the limited scope government that they had just escaped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Just you know, interest rates have absolutely nothing to do with subprime lending.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I'm not suggesting what you want this discussion to be about at all. I'm suggesting there's more to it than you're trying to make it because you want to remove the Republican Party from the equation except in things those mean Democrats forced them to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I didn't intend you to take offense at all. I thought you'd be amused. But go go siege mentality.
I'm saying one party is more responsible than the other party in this mess.. and the only ones to say "both are equally responsible" also generally happen to belong to that party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Weird.
Of course you didn't! You poor victim you!Quote:
I didn't intend you to take offense at all. I thought you'd be amused. But go go siege mentality.
It's curious how you somehow think that exclusively blaming one party while minimizing the actions of your own makes you somehow superior. It sounds like me that one party just has a tougher time admitting fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Sounds like an accountability crisis to me.
I'd be offended if someone thought I was Rojo too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://images.politico.com/global/ne...tch_ap_297.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
It is amazing how frequently you describe yourself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
The projection is intense when I've said over and over again that the Democratic Party was responsible for PART of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
As we've had so carefully noted Parkbandit only think Republicans are responsible because those mean Democrats forced them to vote for protection for the loans.
All the while he carefully ignores the removal of Glass-Steagall which I said that Democrats were partially responsible for too.
I understand you guys have trouble pointing the finger at your own party. I don't actually share your problem. You can wish really hard that I did though.
Everybody fucked up on this. If we were behaving in a mature and adult fashion we'd try to figure out how to keep it from happening but instead ONWARD POLITICAL FOOTBALL.
The part where they've had "affordable" (read: subsidized) housing and increased access to credit for low income (read: subprime) groups as a party platform goal for the past 60+ years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Who would be more at fault? The people on side A that came up with the bill, or the people on side B that were too stupid to vote against it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Let's pretend person A is a drunk driver. Person B is in the passenger seat. The car crashes and kills an entire family. Person A and person B come out without a scratch of course.
Who is more at fault...person A for being in the driver's seat? Or person B for not taking person A's keys away?
I totally believe in American Exceptionalism. It's not a matter of destroying us being necessary, at this rate it's inevitable. We're trading small, manageable collapses over time for one big huge one that very likely won't be manageable at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
You are a bright and shining example of unbiased political punditry, Warriorbird. If only everyone could be as unbiased and factual as you are, this would be a far better placeQuote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Now for intermission I present: The Dancing Vaginas
Attachment 6824
You're this awesome well rounded contrast. You totally show how you're different than me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
We've come full circle. Usually when I say it is one party at fault to PB he says BUT NO BOTH PARTIES ARR!Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Ah ha ha ha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I've never said I was unbiased. I find it amusing how a rabid liberal like you could possible state that you have no problem pointing a finger at your own party faults when the history of your posts on this forum states otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Give some examples... I'm sure you will find I am correct and you are once again proven blissfully ignorant as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
You mean banks are knocking people out on the street, putting hoods over their heads, and forcing them at gunpoint to buy a car they can't afford and won't keep?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Those fucking Banks!!
Just so you know, yes, they have an impact on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Grey
Does this mean that The Dems are both parts, A and B when it comes to Obamacare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
This high horse you ride is more like a My Little Pony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Neither banks or individuals are angels.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
This thread seems to be incorrectly titled since there seems to rarely be discussion about Obama as indicated. Thus, I re dub it the Perpetual Insult of the Circular Argument.
Just like denying that mankind has an affect on the environment? Something is changing. Something is in the air. Could it be a sea change of the republican talking point?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://t1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/39/90/44/...F5m7hnWY0Q.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by leifastagsweed
There have been a lot of discussions about the failures of Obamacare. The problem is Democrats are trying to spin a failure into a success, sort of like how they've been doing with Obama for 6 years now.Quote:
Originally Posted by leifastagsweed
Of course it's telling, man, I'm a scientist. Where there is no data, there is no belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Ah, but they don't have to be used to have an effect. Like the threat of censorship and free speech, the mere threat of price controls is enough to hold price gouging in check. How can I back that up? As follows:Quote:
It is indeed a significant one; notice I was the first one to bring it up. This goes back to the system...if you can find some sort of empirical evidence that proves that the price fixes they use is the main cog in that machine, I'm all ears.
1. We know the United States and Singapore are not different in competition. The top five health insurance companies in each country control the same market share.
2. We know the United States and Singapore are not different in government subsidy. If anything, Singapore's scheme of forcing citizens to save thousands of dollars is a more dramatic and market-warping subsidy.
3. We know that Singapore has seen dramatically less price increases than the United States. If not because of competition or government subsidy, then why not price controls? Economies are complex, granted, but it seems a pretty direct causation: the government says prices can't go more than yea high, then the prices don't go yea high.I understand that you believe this to be true. I also understand that you believe Singapore's system creates more competition than ours does. When I have demonstrated that the latter is untrue, however, I think it behooves you to reexamine the former. No?Quote:
My overarching opinion is that they are wrong in any situation...I've stated that I believe Singapore's healthcare system succeeds in spite of them, not because of them.
I can do that, because I honestly believe in basic arithmetic and the concept of inflation.Quote:
Well yes, in a sense. The unfortunate reality(inconvenient truth?) is that our civilization has been building up to that very thing for generations now...you can't honestly look at the almost 18 TRILLION DOLLAR debt and be like "oh, it's a percentage of GDP, we're fine"...I've previously linked visual references to what 18 trillion dollars actually looks like, IRL...it's somewhat akin to a person standing next to a nuclear-class aircraft carrier...except instead of a ship it's just piles of money. Pallets of money. Stacked a hundred feet high and a thousand feet deep. All 100's.
Then again, maybe it was a conscious choice. Consider these two phrases from the Articles of Confederation and Constitution respectively, with added emphasis mine:Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
"Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Doesn't this suggest that they tried it your way, decided it was junk, and hotfixed that philosophy out? You can criticize their failure to wipe the character base after beta, sure, but the release notes are pretty clear.
I don't think the phrase means what you think it means. I'm not the one proclaiming myself to be unbiased or unafraid to point the finger at my own party... or that other people are not being "classy"... that's you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Hell, even the post you quoted of mine said I am not unbiased and never claimed to be.
You should stick to playing the victim.. you might get someone to feel badly for you.
Fantastic input as usual. You really articulated the issues you see with the ACA in ways none of us ever could.Quote:
Originally Posted by leifastagsweed
Please... continue.
Are you high again at 4 in the afternoon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Here is an easy assignment for you: Just quote one post of mine that states I believe that man doesn't affect the environment. I have tons of posts in multiple threads about climate change.
Just one post is all it takes for you not to be the brain dead retard you have always been here.
That's funny. I don't think you attempting to shout down everyone else about how awful they are is exactly acknowledging your bias.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
But then again, we don't even agree on what words mean.
The failure of the ACA is both party's responsibility. Both parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
If you don't agree, you are a coward and afraid to point the finger at your own party.
.......
No, see, that's kind of the point. . . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I will agree with that, but at the same time.. banks don't FORCE people to take the loans, or go seeking them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If people didn't go looking for car loans they shouldn't have, banks couldn't give them out. Ultimately, it's PERSONAL responsibility. A PERSON sought out a Loan for a car, or a house, or heck a PERSON looks to buy drugs. If there was no drug users, there wouldn't be drug sellers.
It is really sad when people don't want to blame the PERSON. I know you have said they are partially responsible, but in my book, they are closer to 90% responsible.
Sorry, I haven't been keeping up too much in the past 15 pages or so. Is this a reference to something WB said or you scolding me? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Thats one opinion. The success of the ACA is the responsibility of ONE party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HHr6X4FYLy...n-facepalm.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
....Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Yeah, who started early?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I think we should have a four day work week. And I want heathcare. I pay taxes. I want good roads. traffic lights, a fire department, a police department, and an occult department.
"And an occult department"
If we are going to start a witch hunt, I say we start with these fuckers:
Attachment 6825
The dude on the groups right only loves 99% of a giant vagina, wonder which part he does not like?
Is he the token giant vagina?
I doubt anyone is surprised this is well over your head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I want, I want, I want, I want.Quote:
I think we should have a four day work week. And I want heathcare. I pay taxes. I want good roads. traffic lights, a fire department, a police department, and an occult department.
Me, me, me, me...
Whats wrong with wanting a four day work week?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
That giant vagina over there wants a four day work week, get a noose!
My evil forces have now derived the perfect biological weapon to rid us of the invasion of giant vaginas:
Attachment 6826
Actually you just laid out the Founding Fathers clearly anticipating the bulk of government functioning at the State level ... vs a Federal body mandating to all of them what to do...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Obama decides all US territories don't have to follow Obamacare.
Do we have a Congress anymore?
I can't see how he can do that. If they are American Citizens, then the law applies to them. Shouldn't matter where you live.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Because he can just call people racist if they say something about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Now we just need to allow each of the 50 States to 'opt out' ...Quote:
The Obama administration is coming under fire for once again making a unilateral change to ObamaCare -- this time, quietly exempting the five U.S. territories and their more than 4 million residents from virtually all major provisions of the health care law.
The decision was made a week ago, and was a long time coming. For months, the territories have been complaining that the law was implemented so poorly in their regions that it destabilized their insurance markets.
Until now, the Department of Health and Human Services claimed its hands were tied. But last Wednesday, the department reversed course.
The about-face has some questioning the department's authority to suddenly grant 4.1 million Americans an out from ObamaCare. It follows a cascade of prior unilateral actions delaying and nixing parts of the law for certain groups -- actions which in part prompted House Republicans to launch a lawsuit against President Obama challenging his use of executive power.
It absolutely looks to me like that was their original intent. Then they saw it in action (and/or sobered up) and scrapped that balance of power entirely. I also think it's extremely telling that the man who fomented the nullification crisis had absolutely nothing to do with the writing of the Constitution, and was in general kind of an asshole.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
I'd gladly work 4 10's instead of 5 8's. Of course, my job requires that I usually work 5-6 10-12's, but whatever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
http://i.imgur.com/6XCwGAj.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Instead of counting it by days, how many hours a week do you think should be the norm, compared to a 5 day 40 hour work week?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
To my knowledge Ryan Reynolds was not involved in the nullification crisis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
But I wouldn't put it past him.
30 hours a week would be nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV...14,317_AL_.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Join them. Then say "Thanks !Kung Obama!"
Why not just move to Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Because he wants us to be like them instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Methais
Whereas real Americans want to just be Americans and not Euro lite.
I'm on salary so it doesn't really matter, but I'd think that if I were hourly I probably wouldn't want to lose that $100+ a week for an extra day off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
In all seriousness, don't you already have that option to work as little as hours as you wish?
You don't understand. Back doesn't want less MONEY, Just less HOURS. Companies should be forced to pay more money so the people can work less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
There are many, many jobs out there that offer part time work. Or, just let your boss know that your current workload is far too much for you to handle and that you request only working 30 hours a week from now on. I'm sure he would accommodate you, given the 10 hours of vacation you are basically offering him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
New documents reveals that top White House adviser Valerie Jarrett personally conducted damage control with nervous health insurance companies after those companies saw no other way to hold premiums down under Obamacare without a taxpayer-funded bailout.
Their pleas worked.
A month later, the Obama administration issued rules to allow for a taxpayer-funded insurer bailout.
Chet Burrell, president and CEO of Care First Blue Cross Blue Shield, wrote personally to Jarrett in March 2014 that insurers would need taxpayer funding from Obamacare’s risk corridor program in order to cut back on substantial losses, according to a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report released Monday.
Burrell warned that companies may hike premiums by “20 percent or more” due to the Obama administration’s initial policy that the risk corridor program not be augmented with taxpayer dollars.
The risk corridor program was intended to pool payments from insurers and redistribute the funding to the companies that attracted the sickest and most costly influx of patients — leaving the companies that signed up the more profitable customers with the bill.
Jarrett initially protested that the administration had already promised insurers 80 percent of what they wanted in the first place, but eventually conceded that HHS’s “policy team is aggressively pursuing options.”
The next month, the Obama administration issued rules that would permit taxpayer funding to be doled out to insurers through the risk corridor program, which was originally supposed to be budget neutral.
The Obama administration’s assurances have gone far with insurance companies. Out of 15 companies surveyed by the committee, 12 expect to receive payouts from the risk corridor program. Just one expects to pay into the fund — the other two expect no net change.
Just including the 15 companies the Oversight Committee interviewed, taxpayers could be on the hook for $725 million in 2014. The report concluded that the changes to the program could cost taxpayers $1 billion by the end of the year.
Insurance companies have the Obama administration in a tight spot over the program. Without guarantees of a taxpayer bailout, insurers like Burrell were left with drastic premium hikes as their only remaining way of making up their losses.
Obamacare’s three risk mitigation measures are the most significant factor in keeping health-care premiums from soaring so far — although they’re already rising by double digits in many states.
Two of the provisions, risk corridors and reinsurance, are set to run out in 2016.
The University of Minnesota’s Stephen Parente projects that customers won’t see the full weight of Obamacare’s premium hikes until 2017, when the effect of the bailouts has run out. (RELATED: Top Health Economist Predicts Obamacare Will Ultimately Boost Number Of Uninsured)
In the meantime, the White House is trying to guard against a barrage of premium hikes that will be finalized in September, just weeks before midterm elections.
With some of the largest insurers threatening to up their rates “as much as 20 percent or more,” as Burrell warned, the Obama administration may have avoided an even tougher time in the midterms than had it not caved on the risk corridor program’s budget neutrality.
The Oversight report also found that senior White House advisers repeatedly wrote talking points for insurance companies during Obamacare’s rollout, displaying the administration’s always cozy relationship with big name insurance
http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/28/va...#ixzz38oL7dS00
These insurance companies are too big to fail (at least before an election)...
Remember PB.. those insurance companies are EVIL!
They KILLED people.
Why would a Dem have anything to do with them?
At long last, we have something interesting to discuss - risk corridors!
This Stick Of Butter Is Left Out At Room Temperature;
You Won't Believe What Happens Next
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1JI_shx3n0
You have to think like a Democrat voter in order to understand how this works. They don't deal with evil businesses because they want to, they deal with them because the way the system is. Just like the only reason they lie is because of Republicans. If Republicans didn't exist they wouldn't be forced to lie. They wouldn't have to run against them in elections and all would be right with the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Obama forces (some) autoworkers to be signed up against their will:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/07/news...html?iid=HP_LN
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hhs-hunt-...40807_29305736
Nothing to see here.. just move on.Quote:
"A senior health department official under Republican scrutiny for the flawed rollout of HealthCare.gov likely deleted some emails now sought by congressional investigators, msnbc has learned."
Yep.. She did nothing wrong.. nothing to see here at all.Quote:
"According to the letter and two senior HHS officials with knowledge of the matter, Tavenner receives an unusually large number of emails – some 10,000-12,000 per month – since her address is public and advocacy groups occasionally urge their members to contact her. In order to stay below the agency’s Microsoft Outlook email size limit, Tavenner would regularly delete emails after copying or forwarding them to her staff for retention.
However, Tavenner didn’t follow that procedure every time, meaning some emails never made it to her staff for safekeeping before being deleted, the letter explains."
Deleting their emails? Won't someone PLEASE think of the children!!!
Mr. Universal Surveillance sees nothing wrong with an official not following procedures and deleting evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
The irony is strong with this one!
Not all regular behavior is procedural or prescriptive, Terry. Terry Terry bin Berry, banana fanna al-Fari. Caliph, aye, Omani. Terry!
You said a lot of words; of which none I understood.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I'm so sick of you people coming to this country and not learning to speak English.
Well, there IS a law in place that says that they can not in fact delete emails.. so yes, we are in a sense thinking of the Children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Hey pal, I my first language is Navajo. If you want to speak English perhaps you should go back to England.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Maybe you people shouldn't have been squatting on our land before we got here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
My name loosely translates into "One who squats on land."Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
Do not ask me to give up my heritage.
Your land bridge walk still makes you immigrants!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
No wonder health care costs keep rising...
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/02/luxu...html?iid=HP_LN
Quote:
Many hospitals across the country offer the option to avoid that entirely in favor of privacy, plush linens, marble bathrooms and dinner on china. Of course, a five-star stay often comes with a four-figure pricetag.
Take, for example, a stay at the elite Greenberg 14 South wing at NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell. Much like a hotel, the hospital's website advertises its "quiet elegance," listing amenities like patient concierges, private dining rooms, high-end toiletries, marble bathrooms with euro-style walk-in showers and queen-size sleepers for guests, Frette linens and original framed artwork.
Recovering in one of these rooms costs anywhere from $1,200 to $2,100 per night, depending on what size room a patient chooses and what view they opt for.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews
4:53 - Michelle Obama talks about how politicians shouldn't be butting into (women's) private health decisions with their doctors.
http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/u...-facepalm1.jpg
LULZ
We hit 8 million enrollments in Obamacare!
Wait.. we hit 7.4 million!
Er... we hit under 7 million...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...yone-noticing/
Don't forget, they expect what was it.. 10 million this year? I bet they claim 11 million in January, and have it fall to less then 9 October, but we won't hear about that at all either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
...but you did hear about this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
And the yucks keep coming from this farce.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...rks/ar-BBgy7pe
The guy isn't sorry, he told the truth and people got mad cause they were the butt of the joke.
200,000 doctors avoid new obamacare plans
http://www.voicesofliberty.com/artic...amacare-plans/
...it just keeps getting worse, and worse...
Same thing happened in Tennessee with Tencare, the guideline for this hydra. Doctors stoped taking insurance, cash only and you file, Tenncare was paying about $7 for an office viist. It nearly bankrupted the state until they cut back coverage and the eligable people. But hey, it failed on the state level, surely the national level could make it work. Go back in this thread and others, I told you so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
The problem is, this is all part of the grand scheme. The next step is to claim it doesn't work because nationalized health insurance isn't compatible with privatized health care...Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Rocktar~
Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Sadly, likely true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
It must be weird to simultaneously believe your nemeses are incompetent and that they are diabolical geniuses orchestrating the board ten moves ahead. Let's parse the current claim:
Obama signs a bill into law.
It has to be good enough for him to be re-elected in 2012, even though in 2010 he has no idea who he'll be running against.
But bad enough that he'll endure historically average losses in the 2014 midterms.
And bad enough that the winner of the 2016 elections will be able to capitalize on its failure and further Obama's alleged agenda.
Even though that person by definition cannot be Obama, and must re-take both houses of Congress.
Even though a party winning the Presidency and gaining control of both houses hasn't happened since 1952.
I'm all for paranoia but at least be coherent with it, come on guys.
http://pausadrammatica.files.wordpre...ovie-image.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Your problem with comprehension is that you think it all depends on Obama.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
And yet point #6 stands. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Obama only fucked up by not bringing in single payer. Shoulda went all the way, but now big pharm and insurance companies have an excuse to fuck the people even more...
Harvard Ideas on Health Care Hit Home, Hard
Quote:
WASHINGTON — For years, Harvard’s experts on health economics and policy have advised presidents and Congress on how to provide health benefits to the nation at a reasonable cost. But those remedies will now be applied to the Harvard faculty, and the professors are in an uproar.
Members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the heart of the 378-year-old university, voted overwhelmingly in November to oppose changes that would require them and thousands of other Harvard employees to pay more for health care. The university says the increases are in part a result of the Obama administration’s Affordable Care Act, which many Harvard professors championed.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
Roberto Villacreses of Sunshine Life and Health Advisors with Darko Tomelic and Andrea Viteri recently at a Miami mall.
Health Insurance Enrollment Strongest in Federal MarketplaceDEC. 30, 2014
Agents from Sunshine Life and Health Advisors helped customers sign up for health care in Miami this month.
So Far, 6.4 Million Obtain Health Care Coverage for 2015 in Federal MarketplaceDEC. 23, 2014
Obama Administration to Investigate Insurers for Bias Against Costly ConditionsDEC. 22, 2014
The faculty vote came too late to stop the cost increases from taking effect this month, and the anger on campus remains focused on questions that are agitating many workplaces: How should the burden of health costs be shared by employers and employees? If employees have to bear more of the cost, will they skimp on medically necessary care, curtail the use of less valuable services, or both?
“Harvard is a microcosm of what’s happening in health care in the country,” said David M. Cutler, a health economist at the university who was an adviser to President Obama’s 2008 campaign. But only up to a point: Professors at Harvard have until now generally avoided the higher expenses that other employers have been passing on to employees. That makes the outrage among the faculty remarkable, Mr. Cutler said, because “Harvard was and remains a very generous employer.”
In Harvard’s health care enrollment guide for 2015, the university said it “must respond to the national trend of rising health care costs, including some driven by health care reform,” in the form of the Affordable Care Act. The guide said that Harvard faced “added costs” because of provisions in the health care law that extend coverage for children up to age 26, offer free preventive services like mammograms and colonoscopies and, starting in 2018, add a tax on high-cost insurance, known as the Cadillac tax.
Richard F. Thomas, a Harvard professor of classics and one of the world’s leading authorities on Virgil, called the changes “deplorable, deeply regressive, a sign of the corporatization of the university.”
Mary D. Lewis, a professor who specializes in the history of modern France and has led opposition to the benefit changes, said they were tantamount to a pay cut. “Moreover,” she said, “this pay cut will be timed to come at precisely the moment when you are sick, stressed or facing the challenges of being a new parent.”
The university is adopting standard features of most employer-sponsored health plans: Employees will now pay deductibles and a share of the costs, known as coinsurance, for hospitalization, surgery and certain advanced diagnostic tests. The plan has an annual deductible of $250 per individual and $750 for a family. For a doctor’s office visit, the charge is $20. For most other services, patients will pay 10 percent of the cost until they reach the out-of-pocket limit of $1,500 for an individual and $4,500 for a family.
Previously, Harvard employees paid a portion of insurance premiums and had low out-of-pocket costs when they received care.
Michael E. Chernew, a health economist and the chairman of the university benefits committee, which recommended the new approach, acknowledged that “with these changes, employees will often pay more for care at the point of service.” In part, he said, “that is intended because patient cost-sharing is proven to reduce overall spending.”
The president of Harvard, Drew Gilpin Faust, acknowledged in a letter to the faculty that the changes in health benefits — though based on recommendations from some of the university’s own health policy experts — were “causing distress” and had “generated anxiety” on campus. But she said the changes were necessary because Harvard’s health benefit costs were growing faster than operating revenues or staff salaries and were threatening the budget for other priorities like teaching, research and student aid.
In response, Harvard professors, including mathematicians and microeconomists, have dissected the university’s data and question whether its health costs have been growing as fast as the university says. Some created spreadsheets and contended that the university’s arguments about the growth of employee health costs were misleading. In recent years, national health spending has been growing at an exceptionally slow rate.
In addition, some ideas that looked good to academia in theory are now causing consternation. In 2009, while Congress was considering the health care legislation, Dr. Alan M. Garber — then a Stanford professor and now the provost of Harvard — led a group of economists who sent an open letter to Mr. Obama endorsing cost-control features of the bill. They praised the Cadillac tax as a way to rein in health costs and premiums.
Dr. Garber, a physician and health economist, has been at the center of the current Harvard debate. He approved the changes in benefits, which were recommended by a committee that included university administrators and experts on health policy.
In an interview, Dr. Garber acknowledged that Harvard employees would face greater cost-sharing, but he defended the changes. “Cost-sharing, if done appropriately, can slow the growth of health spending,” he said. “We need to be prepared for the very real possibility that health expenditure growth will take off again.”
But Jerry R. Green, a professor of economics and a former provost who has been on the Harvard faculty for more than four decades, said the new out-of-pocket costs could lead people to defer medical care or diagnostic tests, causing more serious illnesses and costly complications in the future.
“It’s equivalent to taxing the sick,” Professor Green said. “I don’t think there’s any government in the world that would tax the sick.”
Meredith B. Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at the Harvard School of Public Health, said she was puzzled by the outcry. “The changes in Harvard faculty benefits are parallel to changes that all Americans are seeing,” she said. “Indeed, they have come to our front door much later than to others.”
But in her view, there are drawbacks to the Harvard plan and others like it that require consumers to pay a share of health care costs at the time of service. “Consumer cost-sharing is a blunt instrument,” Professor Rosenthal said. “It will save money, but we have strong evidence that when faced with high out-of-pocket costs, consumers make choices that do not appear to be in their best interests in terms of health.”
Harvard’s new plan is far more generous than plans sold on public insurance exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. Harvard says its plan pays 91 percent of the cost of services for the covered population, while the most popular plans on the exchanges, known as silver plans, pay 70 percent, on average, reflecting their "actuarial value.”
"None of us who protested was motivated by our own bottom line so much as by the principle,” Ms. Lewis said, expressing concern about the impact of the changes on lower-paid employees.
In many states, consumers have complained about health plans that limit their choice of doctors and hospitals. Some Harvard employees have said they will gladly accept a narrower network of health care providers if it lowers their costs. But Harvard’s ability to create such networks is complicated by the fact that some of Boston’s best-known, most expensive hospitals are affiliated with Harvard Medical School. To create a network of high-value providers, Harvard would probably need to exclude some of its own teaching hospitals, or discourage their use.
“Harvard employees want access to everything,” said Dr. Barbara J. McNeil, the head of the health care policy department at Harvard Medical School and a member of the benefits committee. “They don’t want to be restricted in what institutions they can get care from.”
Although out-of-pocket costs over all for a typical Harvard employee are to increase in 2015, administrators said premiums would decline slightly. They noted that the university, which has an endowment valued at more than $36 billion, had an unusual program to provide protection against high out-of-pocket costs for employees earning $95,000 a year or less. Still, professors said the protections did not offset the new financial burdens that would fall on junior faculty and lower-paid staff members.
“It seems that Harvard is trying to save money by shifting costs to sick people,” said Mary C. Waters, a professor of sociology. “I don’t understand why a university with Harvard’s incredible resources would do this. What is the crisis?”
Kinda reminds me of that time Congress said Obamacare was good for everyone except them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Tl;Dr, but anecdotally, someone I know has been trying to sign up for over a year so as to avoid the penal- I mean, "tax" :jerkit:, but keeps getting bounced back and forth between federal and state over and over. Wonder how many billions government will steal from citizens who have tried to comply? If they did that to me, I'd be rpg'ing the white house to light a fire under their sharty cracks to fix this mess. Horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday.
The number comes from figures buried in a 15-page section of the nonpartisan organization's new ten-year budget outlook.
The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in 'between 24 million and 27 million' fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect.
Pulling that off will cost Uncle Sam about $1.35 trillion – or $50,000 per head.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...et-report.html
Don't worry though.. this will not "add one dime to our deficit"..
Suckers.
$50,000 over 17 years doesn't seem too bad, that's just under $3k a year. Throw in the savings from people not missing work and the wealth will trickle right back up!
Shut up Latrin
Liberals:
"Get the government out of my vagina!"
"Give me free government healthcare!"
Stupid quote of the week. Right here. You don't even know what you are saying!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That's like, exactly what liberals have been saying since 2008. Do you even pay attention to the news or do you just listen for your name?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Explain to me how your previous post made any sense at all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Here you go Back:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
https://www.facebook.com/hoohaUSA
It's especially hilarious because on the same freaking Facebook page you can see Democrats screaming for government to stay out of womens' vaginas while also celebrating the effect Obamacare is having on vaginas.
Nah. There are plenty of quotes from you that top him. Like, every post you make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
R U Retarded or R U Ganalon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
I am going to re-quote you here and break down everything that is wrong with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
First!
Do you even know what a Liberal is? I don't think you do. It is right there in my signature. You're trying to somehow demonize women's issues with some lame political term you don't even understand. So you just discredited more than half the world's population because of your own ignorance. No wonder you can't get laid.
Second!
Abortion is a choice. A choice. People should be able to have that choice. And have it in safe and acceptable environments. If it is not your choice, good on you! That does not mean you won't have a stupid kid.
Third!
Contraception has nothing to do with abortion or your "I'm afraid of the government" nonsense. Free contraception is in fact the best way to prevent numerous problems we all face.
Fourth!
I should really keep you blocked because I know all you do is agitate people for your own pleasure.
I got to this line and literally laughed out loud.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Well played irony, Pack.
Back, American liberals are all about individual rights and government provided social services; how that doesn't cover the "stay outta my vagina" crowd and the "give me free health care" crowd is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain it more than just referring to your sig.
As to the rest of your nonsesne, I can't help but notice you didn't actually disprove anything I said which I thought you were going to do because you had no idea what I was talking about.
Umm, Back... you affirmed the whole thing about allowing abortion / preventative measures ("get the government out of my vagina") ... and left unaddressed (which is an affirmation itself) "give me free government healthcare".
Person A wants legal abortionQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Person B wants universal healthcare
Person A wants to have a medical procedure without restriction
Person B wants to have a medical procedure without restriction
:)
The point I was trying to make, which I thought was pretty clear, is that contraception and abortion are not political issues. They are human issues. And they are not governed by women.
Stay out of my vagina means don't tell me what I can or cannot do with it. Does anyone govern penises?
Free contraception? Well arguing against that is just plain dumb.
Nicely done. Actually,Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Person A wants unrestricted abortion
Person B wants unrestricted abortion
Person C wants to restrict abortion
Person D wants to restrict abortion
Person A wants free healthcare (paid by others)
Person C wants free healthcare (paid by others)
Person B does not want to pay for others' healthcare in addition to his/her own
Person D does not want to pay for others' healthcare in addition to his/her own
Person A wants the government to have nothing to do with their vagina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Person A wants the government to pay for what happens to their vagina.
Wait a minute.
What really gets me is I actually agree with both positions; I just think that people should make better arguments than "hurr! Get outta my vagina!!"
Would you feel the same way if it was about your penis?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Have you been tutoring under WB in obfuscation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
(you still affirmed Tgo01's first line)
Sorry, bro. What point are you trying, and failing, to make?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Abortion isn't a political issue? Too bad the Supreme Court disagrees with you.
I'm going to start telling more people to get out of my penis.
Wrong. Too bad they disagree with people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
You think the Supreme Court said the government should stay out of abortions altogether? You're so adorable sometimes, Back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Who would tell you what you can or cannot do with your vagina? Oh, that's right.. the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
Please stop.
This is exactly the government everyone fears. Is it our own? Yes it is. Is it others? Yes it is. How do we solve it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_HoqckAp4BP...burnttoast.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
So you have nothing productive to say, You'd rather mock people trying to solve a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
Let me ask you this. How do we resolve problems with people like you?
I already know the fucking answer. Give me give me give me. Greedy fucks! Cry about handouts when you want them in tax breaks and loopholes. How are you any different from welfare queens?
For you Back.
http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpre...rs-cartoon.jpg
That's a figure in isolation. It's also 20 percent lower than projections that came out when the law is enacted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
I'm pretty sure it will add to the national debt in isolation. The question is whether it creates a more productive economy by ensuring more people have access to health care, which allows them to be productive economically.
I think the question is how can anyone take Obama or his backers seriously anymore after they all lied, cheated, swindled and murdered saying Obamacare wouldn't add to the deficit and would actually in fact save the federal government money!Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Wasnt Obama going to pay for Obamacare by eliminating fraud in Medicare and using the savings to pay for it? Whatever happened to that lie anyways?
He got a kickback from medical device manufacturers to not eliminate fraud. Like Congress did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
I recommend complaining and arguing about it on obscure online forums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
The Modus Operandi forums are booming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Silvean
Back has a vagina.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
http://dingo.care2.com/pictures/gree...1352.large.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
Good grade school comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelston
You've got two coherent explanations, mine and yours. One of them paints someone you disagree with in a poor light. Is that reason enough to choose it over the other perfectly coherent explanation?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
Back has a vajayjaaaaaaaaaayQuote:
Originally Posted by Back
The point here is the "slippery slope" that I know you think doesn't exist...Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
I'll break it down real simple-like...
It doesn't matter what the current government allows, or wants, or approves of. The point is control. If you give the government the power to control, you're setting yourself up to follow that to its indeterminable end. When the government you want is in place, that's a good thing for you...when the next government comes along, it's not going to be good for you.
Only by standing closely to our Constitutional Rights...and nothing more, or less...are we able to avoid both extremes. I know we started this whole project hundreds of years before any of us were born, and it's really hard for someone born this late in the project to grasp the global scenario going on when all this took off, or a lot of the reasons why we have the things we have...but it is all there if you actually care enough to spend a little time researching.
The point I think Tg was trying to make is, the huge Women's Lib/anti-abortion movement wants government out of their lives when telling them they can't have abortions...but wants them IN their lives to tell employers they have to pay for such. On the face that seems like a conflict of interest, and it is. It goes back to what I said before...either you give them control or you don't. Instead of lobbying for new laws that give whatever government more power, start lobbying for limiting power back to the 1800's.
Government isn't a computer. It's not a ground-breaking laser treatment for cancer. At its core, it's based in logic, and nothing more...logic that is timeless. It is one of the few things where new isn't always better. Quit trying to change it and focus more on using it the way it was intended.
The only reason abortion is an issue is because people disagree on when a life becomes a life. To abortion proponents, I think I can safely say the VAST majority would be completely against a mother killing their 6-year-old child...or even their 1-year-old child...but have no problem killing a fetus. I'm not at all a religious person, but to me, as soon as that seed breaks in to that egg, that's a person, unless there is some known medical condition that would otherwise prevent and/or seriously complicate that fetus growing to birth. The issue here is that while that fetus doesn't yet know it is a person...we know that it will be. That line of reasoning is invalidated by the fact that you're not allowed to kill someone with advanced Alzheimer's.
If you'd bother to quit huffing paint, you'd realize that a lot of us are against the corporate handouts and tax breaks and loopholes as well. ProTip: Your side does it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Back
It's a condition of people in power, not a condition of right or left. Our Constitution was designed to hold this off for a while, but...it's finally starting to wear down. The strongest wall can only hold out for so long.
There's a difference between the government saying you can't do something and the government supporting you when you want to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
There's curiously little outcry about erectile dysfunction drugs from these very same people.
The lack of government also isn't some special fantastic utopia. It's anarchy and the collapse of our society. You think exploitation happens now? Wait till all the rules go.
No it's because I'm right and you're wrong! NEENER NEENER!Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
No. The insurance exchanges were always going to cost money. (there would be savings from hospitals having to take care of less uninsured people in the ER, but that would not be counted in the net cost of the insurance exchanges, from what I read in the CBO report)Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
The parts of the ACA that were supposed to save money were three-fold, if I remember correctly:
1) Reduction to payment rates for Medicare Advantage
2) Various pilot programs designed to create cost efficiency that could be expanded broadly (that's ongoing)
3) The Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) that was meant to determine the most cost-effective ways of treatment and make sure Medicare payment rates for various treatments were correctly formulated, and make that the standard for Medicare. By doing that, insurance companies (who generally follow Medicare's line) would also do the same.
3 was the very big driver of savings. Members of the IPAB were supposed to be appointed by the President, the Senate, and the House. The House, under Republican control, has refused to appoint its members, and thus IPAB cannot function.
Lol...you're serious about this? Damn, man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Not exactly death panels.... but lets look at what the HHS has said since Obamacare passed....Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Women under 50 don't need a mammogram every year.
Men under 50 don't need a prostate exam.
People only need a general check up every other year.
Sounds like they are really trying to figure out the most "Cost-Efficient" way to keep me alive, huh. These are just "recommendations" for now... but soon they will become the standard for healthcare approved by the Government. Why.. to save money. Which will cost lives.
Because they were obviously secretly "death panels!" to kill us all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Correct. The former should only be necessary in the most dire of circumstances, and the latter should only be necessary never.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
lolwhut?Quote:
There's curiously little outcry about erectile dysfunction drugs from these very same people.
I've never once been a supporter of ALL the rules going. Really, man, I expected better of you than resorting to obvious logical fallacies.Quote:
The lack of government also isn't some special fantastic utopia. It's anarchy and the collapse of our society. You think exploitation happens now? Wait till all the rules go.
You cited a fallacy in your post. When you declare that the "slippery slope" is real, everybody else gets to too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Already in Chicken Little mode. Doom is coming for us! Doom!Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
Let me ask you this.. do you think it's a GOOD thing to tell us we shouldn't have "Yearly" Physicals?Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Right now it's just a recommendation. How long do you think it will be till it is the standard?
Got to save money somehow, am I right?
OH wait.. I forgot.. you have your head so far up the Democratic Party's ass that not even a proctologist can help you.
I'll refer you to what I told Thondalar. When you're performing a logical fallacy why are you so unwilling to believe that you might be the one who has the wrong take? Why do you believe that any of your made up or real provisions are going to effect people not on the ACA?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvan
"Because Obama is the Great Satan!" isn't valid reasoning for your answer.
There is a long history of private insurances modeling coverage based on government offerings.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Secondly the Affordable Care Act did far more than establish exchanges and subsidies, it also wrote coverage mandates for every private insurance plan in the country (which is honestly the larger part of my problem with it), and it is a fluid thing where minimum coverage levels get periodically reevaluated. Now, on face value, the idea of "minimum coverage" seems like a good thing. You don't want any customer getting misled thinking they have health insurance only to break their leg and find out only arms are covered. But the problem with it is that special interests get involved, as they always do, and the minimum coverage is the car equivalent of a Cadillac. Theoretically if we forced everyone to buy a Cadillac or not drive at all, we'd see a lot more bicycles, wouldn't we? But that is what we've done with healthcare. There is actually a provision for prayer healing in there, and of course the infamous contraception mandate, maternity coverage, addiction coverage, children up to age 27, etc. These are things not everyone needs. The 50 year old man doesn't need maternity coverage, but he is forced to buy it (feminazis will say this is so they (women) don't need to "unfairly" pay more for health insurance. Note men pay significantly more for life insurance, because of course we die sooner, yay us, if it really is a thing for genders to pay equal amounts for everything why don't we "fix" life insurance?). The 18 year old low wage laborer without parental support doesn't need coverage for his nonexistent 27 year old kids, but he is forced to buy it so 27 year old future-rich graduate students can afford more beer. No one needs prayer healing.
All of these minimum coverage mandates cost money, but insurers have to charge them. Meanwhile customers, as ever, want lower prices. So the government changes one minimum coverage mandate that is actually pretty good, a yearly physical, meanwhile all those other coverage mandates go up in price and more are added (if history is any guide, chiropractors, naturopaths, herbologists, etc etc etc all constantly lobby to be included, and so new minimum coverages happen every once in awhile). Is it really that unbelievable that, in the face of rising costs of things they have to buy but people don't want, and people asking for lower prices, an private insurer might cut where they can, including that yearly physical, or any of the other recent controversial shifts?
What is the solution? Tell the government to fuck off, what an insurance plan covers, as a private contract, should be between the customer and the insurer. The governmental role, if any, would be patient education, the adjudication of disputes through the courts, and regulations for disclosure prior to issuing insurance (truth-in-lending disclosure form equivalent). Just imagine if insurers had flexibility of what they offered, insurance could be sold nationwide across state lines (the big reason for that push is to escape special interest won state coverage mandates), and an exchange was run by Amazon or Google with a full slate of comparison tools and customer reviews? A true marketplace.
I have a degree in economics, and I look at budget stuff regularly. (federal infrastructure spending drives part of my company's revenue, so I pay attention to it) It's been pretty clear that the thing driving the federal budget deficit up on a long term basis is health care spending, since it's inflation rate is much higher than normal inflation. Bending its cost curve down to more manageable levels will bring the deficit under control on a long term basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
That most certainly isn't the solution to increasing costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by crb
Your views are heavily colored by your wife and things that are in her interests.
Reducing extraneous coverages down to what would genuinely be considered 'basic coverage' would contribute immensely to reducing healthcare costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Your views are heavily colored by your desire for government to be a nanny state.
I'd just like us to spend less money on healthcare. The rest is your projections. It's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
It is really hard. Let's ask the author of the Constitution what his explicit thoughts on implied powers are. "It is not denied that there are implied well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the tatter. ... The whole turn of the [necessary and proper clause] indicates, that it was the intent of the Convention, by that clause, to give a liberal latitude to the exercise of the specified powers."Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
But Mr. Hamilton, it's a slippery slope!! Oh, you explicitly addressed that too? "To be implied in the nature of the federal government, says he, would beget a doctrine so indefinite as to grasp every power. ... To this objection an answer has been already given. ... The affirming that, as incident to sovereign power, Congress may erect a corporation in relation to the collection of their taxes, is no more to affirm that they may do whatever else they please, than the saying that they have a power to regulate trade, would be to affirm that they have a power to regulate religion."We have only ever enjoyed rights when they are protected by the government. The movement you describe wants their rights protected by the government and wants their rights protected by the government, thus there is no conflict. The active ingredient is not government involvement, but external interference. When that takes the form of laws, they say "keep your laws off my body". When that takes the form of employer discrimination, they say "vive l'Obamacare". The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the pro-abortion movement demanded that the government forced people to have abortions.Quote:
The point I think Tg was trying to make is, the huge Women's Lib/anti-abortion movement wants government out of their lives when telling them they can't have abortions...but wants them IN their lives to tell employers they have to pay for such. On the face that seems like a conflict of interest, and it is. It goes back to what I said before...either you give them control or you don't. Instead of lobbying for new laws that give whatever government more power, start lobbying for limiting power back to the 1800's.
The phrase is not "we have discovered these truths via syllogism", the phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The words therefore and thus never occur in the Constitution. You keep using the word logic, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Our government is explicitly based on premises, not conclusions, which is why it is explicitly based on discarding those premises when we deem them inferior.Quote:
Government isn't a computer. It's not a ground-breaking laser treatment for cancer. At its core, it's based in logic, and nothing more...logic that is timeless. It is one of the few things where new isn't always better. Quit trying to change it and focus more on using it the way it was intended.
This is another difference between you and the framers: they were realists when it comes to government power. This is not because they were any smarter than you, it's merely because they happened to live through a limited federal government and the catastrophic failure that immediately resulted.Quote:
Correct. The former should only be necessary in the most dire of circumstances, and the latter should only be necessary never.
Sorry.. got you here. I worked for an Insurance company, Aetna. Know how they determine if a product or service is ok, or considered experimental? If the Government covers it for medicaid or medicare, if the AMA considers it normal to do, and if it is approved by the FDA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
So yes.. the Government saying that "Yearly" physicals are not needed yearly... will be updated in medicaid, and medicare. Once that is done, eventually insurance companies will start changing the plans to reflect this.. that is if HHS doesn't outright CHANGE the requirements of the plans themselves. Remember... ~NO~ plan can be sold that does not meet their requirement. Granted, a plan can offer MORE. But what low budget plan is going to offer MORE then what they have to? And what is the plan most of the people that can't afford healthcare any other way get? The Budget plans.
Thank you. Try again.
And you must have a HUGE Oxygen tank... to have kept your head up there so long.
What you're saying is true, what you're not realizing you're saying is that the only way these things will work with each other, from an economic standpoint, is death panels. Go ahead and joke about it, but it's 3) in your original post. WTF do you think it means by "most cost-effective"? It means guess what, buddy...you've paid in to this Federally-mandated Insurance program only to find out that now that you have terminal cancer you're a drain on the program and we're not going to fund your potentially life-saving treatment because you're probably going to die anyway and we're not going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a 15% chance. Crb is dead-on with his post...what this created is the insurance form of crony capitalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
I'd like to spend less money on food. Hell, I'd like to spend less money on everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
If you're worried about how much we spend on healthcare, why not look at the available models being used in other countries that have cheaper and better healthcare?
Oh, because they don't fit your preconceived notions of what the system should be.
I have. I'd love to use them. Why don't you, your party, and your actual party look at them? Oh right. This is Mitt Romney's plan that he carefully edited out of his book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Is this even...real? Latrin, sorry for asking, but...are you drunk? Typos and misquotes and random interjections aren't your normal bag, I'm a bit concerned, as a friend.Quote:
Originally Posted by Latrinsorm
Source?Quote:
We have only ever enjoyed rights when they are protected by the government.
Here's the issue with your total lack of comprehension. What rights are those, exactly? The right to kill people because they don't fit your definition of what a person is? Look...I'm all for abortion. I get tags every year to hunt deer, because deer aren't smart enough to monitor their own population, and breed indiscriminately. I would like to think that humans are smart enough to do what deer don't, but apparently we aren't. I support abortion from a scientific standpoint, because I'm ultimately a psychopath and don't attach any moral or religious stigma to the taking of a life in and of itself. I also recognize the scientific fact that, if not for outside intervention, a fertilized seed will eventually become a human, barring the relatively slim chances of various natural medical impedance.Quote:
The movement you describe wants their rights protected by the government and wants their rights protected by the government, thus there is no conflict.
Except that it's not "keep your laws off my body", it's "make laws about my body that others have to follow because I benefit more from it". I'm sure you're intelligent enough to see the distinction, and follow it to it's logical conclusion.Quote:
The active ingredient is not government involvement, but external interference. When that takes the form of laws, they say "keep your laws off my body". When that takes the form of employer discrimination, they say "vive l'Obamacare".
Really? You don't think forcing me to pay for someone else's abortion is a conflict of interest?Quote:
The only way there would be a conflict of interest is if the pro-abortion movement demanded that the government forced people to have abortions.
Indeed...and what truths did they hold to be self-evident?Quote:
The phrase is not "we have discovered these truths via syllogism", the phrase is "we hold these truths to be self-evident". The words therefore and thus never occur in the Constitution. You keep using the word logic, but I do not think it means what you think it means. Our government is explicitly based on premises, not conclusions, which is why it is explicitly based on discarding those premises when we deem them inferior.
Wait wait...the English Crown was a limited federal government? Wow, man. I...I must say, Latrin, for the first time ever you've struck me speechless.Quote:
This is another difference between you and the framers: they were realists when it comes to government power. This is not because they were any smarter than you, it's merely because they happened to live through a limited federal government and the catastrophic failure that immediately resulted.
Articles. The Libertarian dreamland that wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Lol...what? That didn't even make sense, man. Come on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
:deadhorse:Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Keep ignoring positive discourse by clinging to past ignorance. I'm rooting for you.
I'm not ignoring anything. The Articles were awful. We've been through this. You just didn't want to hear it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
I would love to have any one of a number of alternate plans. ACA could've been much better but Obama gave away most of its value in a year of fruitless negotiations with Republicans. He shouldn't have been so naive. American conservatives don't want successful reform.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thondalar
Now wacky reactionary nonsense will be proposed, Obama will veto it, Democrats will actually undeservedly look good, and it'll eventually work to give Congress back.
Someone we know spent the last year getting passed around between state and federal. Result? Though no fault of their own, they had to pay the "tax" for not having healthcare. What a scam. Wonder how many other people had $24 stolen from them this time around by our tyrannical government?
Was it you?! Oh wait, you don't pay taxes.
Or update your car tags.
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackWhisper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackWhisper
+1 government. -1 shartrepper. Obama did something right in eight years. I'm impressed and proud of our country right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by JackWhisper
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/28/news...html?iid=HP_LN
Quote:
Some 3 million to 6 million Americans will have to pay an Obamacare tax penalty for not having health insurance last year, Treasury officials said Wednesday. It's the first time they have given estimates for how many people will be subject to a fine.
The penalty is $95, or 1% of income above a certain threshold (roughly $20,000 for a couple). So you could end up owing the IRS a lot of money.
Ha, thx. Now that this mess is finally hitting people's wallets, maybe we'll get it defunded/repealed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atlanteax
This is just the start. No one will care about the $95 and it will slowly increase every year until we're used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Then we deserve it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit